Shocking? Most certainly. Dangerous? Definitely. Global pandemic? Almost certainly not. The method of transmission is by interaction with bodily fluids, which isn't as simple as many news agencies make it out to be. The reason it's spreading so fast in Africa is that a) a lot of people can't go to the hospital, b) there's a severe lack of education on the issue, c) a lot of cultures there perform ritualistic practices on their dead that enhance transmission, d) there's generally a lot of people who are wary of western help, which are their main sources of treatment, e) there are a lot of rural areas that are difficult to access, and f) these are incredibly poor countries with limited resources and, often, difficulties in keeping various tools necessary for treatments free of contamination.

None of these are problems in the U.S. and most first world nations, so it seems unlikely that the spread of Ebola will come anywhere close to pandemic levels. Some people are worried that it will go airborne, but I'm really upset with the scientists/doctors who have engendered the hype on that, because it's about as unlikely as it gets. Think about it this way - the virus has a lot of mechanisms that work together to produce its capacity to spread and infect efficiently. Each of those would need to be mutated in just the right way at the same time in order for Ebola to continue being an effective virus. It's far more likely that one of them will get altered in a way that makes Ebola completely ineffective as a virus, or simply knocks down its symptoms. In any case, the concept of any of the Ebola strains that infect humans becoming airborne is exceedingly unlikely.

"First Confirmed Ebola Case in the U.S. " The first of thousands most likely.

If it spreads this is all on the heads of the CDC for not following quarantine protocol and allowing known visitors of ebola infected regions into the US. Anyone visiting any infected region must be put in quarantine and held there until the incubation period passes and only then and only then shall they be allowed to leave the region. Quarantine protocol 101.

At 10/1/2014 10:48:56 PM, sadolite wrote:"First Confirmed Ebola Case in the U.S. " The first of thousands most likely.

If it spreads this is all on the heads of the CDC for not following quarantine protocol and allowing known visitors of ebola infected regions into the US. Anyone visiting any infected region must be put in quarantine and held there until the incubation period passes and only then and only then shall they be allowed to leave the region. Quarantine protocol 101.

Really? Thousands? It can spread that far in Africa, but in the U.S. it's unlikely to spread outside of a few people per victim, and that's pretty much the worst case scenario. Quarantine protocols should have been better followed, but the idea that the first case in the U.S. means we're soon going to be suffering from the disease in epidemic proportions is taking the problem a little out of proportion.

So this is how it all begins... from Liberia to Texas huh? Well, I think the others like whiteflame have gotten it right by saying how it's easier contained in a first-world nation like ours. Until they say that it is spreading uncontrollably, I personally see no reason for alarm. It's a scary situation though, I don't think anyone can rightfully deny that.

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

It's hard not to see this as scary given the high mortality rates in Africa, as well as certain Canadian scientists coming out and saying there is a good chance it goes airborne.

If it's not that dangerous what was with the over reaction in Washington DC back when they thought Ebola may have escaped one of the labs. I read the book about that and I gotta tell you it seemed pretty scary.

I understand what I've heard about the conditions in 3rd world countries contributing and exxagerating the deadly effects of Ebola and what Whiteflame said about how hard it was for this thing to go airborne but if it's not that dangerous, what the hell was with media and the scientific community trying to scare the crap out of us about this 20 years ago?

It's that fear that the media and experts drilled into me 20 years ago that still resides in me, it's the fact that with the combined fact that there is no consensus in the scientific community about this Ebola being no big deal.

At 10/2/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wylted wrote:It's hard not to see this as scary given the high mortality rates in Africa, as well as certain Canadian scientists coming out and saying there is a good chance it goes airborne.

If it's not that dangerous what was with the over reaction in Washington DC back when they thought Ebola may have escaped one of the labs. I read the book about that and I gotta tell you it seemed pretty scary.

I understand what I've heard about the conditions in 3rd world countries contributing and exxagerating the deadly effects of Ebola and what Whiteflame said about how hard it was for this thing to go airborne but if it's not that dangerous, what the hell was with media and the scientific community trying to scare the crap out of us about this 20 years ago?

It's that fear that the media and experts drilled into me 20 years ago that still resides in me, it's the fact that with the combined fact that there is no consensus in the scientific community about this Ebola being no big deal.

I can give you four different answers to those questions, all of which are correct to some extent. The first is that, like all new diseases that come to the U.S. with some mortality rate abroad, we worry about what a disease might do in a new environment. The U.S. is certainly a new environment, and there are reasonable concerns to be had about which vectors it might find, and how the changes in population concentrations may affect it. However, realize that Ebola's natural vector is bats. This isn't likely to come into contact with humans in many parts of this country, and any other organism that can be infected will likely be harmed by the disease (not to mention be far less common here than it is in Africa). As for population centers, I'm just not sure that that should be our major concern when it has spread to cities in Africa, and mostly been controlled there.

The second reason is that it's a scary disease. A hemorrhagic fever with some maybe cures (note that those weren't available in the slightest back when the first epidemics were raging) that has a reported 90% mortality rate among its victims is a big problem, not to mention the terrifying list of symptoms. That's worrisome, but it lacks the spreading mechanisms of so many other deadly diseases, resigning only a few to that suffering.

The third reason is travel. Planes involve a lot of interaction with people in close quarters, and since that makes it far more likely that Ebola will spread, it creates a justifiably awful situation. Add in the fact that this is an international problem and therefore requires quarantines to involve efforts by multiple nations acting in tandem, and you've got a problem. Even in this case, though, there's been no cases of Ebola spreading throughout passengers on a plane that I can recall, mainly because the symptoms it presents are so obvious that no one wants to sit near to that person, and because they tend not to be spewing fluids all over their fellow passengers.

The fourth reason is that scientists remember the first time Ebola came to the U.S. I can't remember if it was Reston or Ivory Coast, but one of those two was brought back to the U.S. for study in monkeys (mainly because it cannot infect humans). One monkey was infected, placed in a separate room from its healthy fellows. Despite the separation, all monkeys were infected, and had to be sacrificed. This is, to my knowledge, the sole instance of Ebola showing any airborne properties, and some people remember it all too well. However, there's no evidence whatsoever that any other Ebola strain (or even that same one in nature) has this property. As such, I remain skeptical, and much as concerns are somewhat validated, there's a lack of evidence to support them.

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

At 10/2/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wylted wrote:It's hard not to see this as scary given the high mortality rates in Africa, as well as certain Canadian scientists coming out and saying there is a good chance it goes airborne.

If it's not that dangerous what was with the over reaction in Washington DC back when they thought Ebola may have escaped one of the labs. I read the book about that and I gotta tell you it seemed pretty scary.

I understand what I've heard about the conditions in 3rd world countries contributing and exxagerating the deadly effects of Ebola and what Whiteflame said about how hard it was for this thing to go airborne but if it's not that dangerous, what the hell was with media and the scientific community trying to scare the crap out of us about this 20 years ago?

It's that fear that the media and experts drilled into me 20 years ago that still resides in me, it's the fact that with the combined fact that there is no consensus in the scientific community about this Ebola being no big deal.

I can give you four different answers to those questions, all of which are correct to some extent. The first is that, like all new diseases that come to the U.S. with some mortality rate abroad, we worry about what a disease might do in a new environment. The U.S. is certainly a new environment, and there are reasonable concerns to be had about which vectors it might find, and how the changes in population concentrations may affect it. However, realize that Ebola's natural vector is bats. This isn't likely to come into contact with humans in many parts of this country, and any other organism that can be infected will likely be harmed by the disease (not to mention be far less common here than it is in Africa). As for population centers, I'm just not sure that that should be our major concern when it has spread to cities in Africa, and mostly been controlled there.

The second reason is that it's a scary disease. A hemorrhagic fever with some maybe cures (note that those weren't available in the slightest back when the first epidemics were raging) that has a reported 90% mortality rate among its victims is a big problem, not to mention the terrifying list of symptoms. That's worrisome, but it lacks the spreading mechanisms of so many other deadly diseases, resigning only a few to that suffering.

The third reason is travel. Planes involve a lot of interaction with people in close quarters, and since that makes it far more likely that Ebola will spread, it creates a justifiably awful situation. Add in the fact that this is an international problem and therefore requires quarantines to involve efforts by multiple nations acting in tandem, and you've got a problem. Even in this case, though, there's been no cases of Ebola spreading throughout passengers on a plane that I can recall, mainly because the symptoms it presents are so obvious that no one wants to sit near to that person, and because they tend not to be spewing fluids all over their fellow passengers.

The fourth reason is that scientists remember the first time Ebola came to the U.S. I can't remember if it was Reston or Ivory Coast, but one of those two was brought back to the U.S. for study in monkeys (mainly because it cannot infect humans). One monkey was infected, placed in a separate room from its healthy fellows. Despite the separation, all monkeys were infected, and had to be sacrificed. This is, to my knowledge, the sole instance of Ebola showing any airborne properties, and some people remember it all too well. However, there's no evidence whatsoever that any other Ebola strain (or even that same one in nature) has this property. As such, I remain skeptical, and much as concerns are somewhat validated, there's a lack of evidence to support them.

Maybe this is too complex of a question but why would the Ebola be airborne in monkeys but not in humans?

Forgive me, I'm ignorant of a lot of scientific things that may or may not be common knowledge.

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

We already agreed on the substance of that quote, which is that quarantines are necessary to protect public health. Your statement was that Ebola specifically would infect a substantial number of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. That's what I have a problem with.

At 10/2/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wylted wrote:It's hard not to see this as scary given the high mortality rates in Africa, as well as certain Canadian scientists coming out and saying there is a good chance it goes airborne.

If it's not that dangerous what was with the over reaction in Washington DC back when they thought Ebola may have escaped one of the labs. I read the book about that and I gotta tell you it seemed pretty scary.

I understand what I've heard about the conditions in 3rd world countries contributing and exxagerating the deadly effects of Ebola and what Whiteflame said about how hard it was for this thing to go airborne but if it's not that dangerous, what the hell was with media and the scientific community trying to scare the crap out of us about this 20 years ago?

It's that fear that the media and experts drilled into me 20 years ago that still resides in me, it's the fact that with the combined fact that there is no consensus in the scientific community about this Ebola being no big deal.

I can give you four different answers to those questions, all of which are correct to some extent. The first is that, like all new diseases that come to the U.S. with some mortality rate abroad, we worry about what a disease might do in a new environment. The U.S. is certainly a new environment, and there are reasonable concerns to be had about which vectors it might find, and how the changes in population concentrations may affect it. However, realize that Ebola's natural vector is bats. This isn't likely to come into contact with humans in many parts of this country, and any other organism that can be infected will likely be harmed by the disease (not to mention be far less common here than it is in Africa). As for population centers, I'm just not sure that that should be our major concern when it has spread to cities in Africa, and mostly been controlled there.

The second reason is that it's a scary disease. A hemorrhagic fever with some maybe cures (note that those weren't available in the slightest back when the first epidemics were raging) that has a reported 90% mortality rate among its victims is a big problem, not to mention the terrifying list of symptoms. That's worrisome, but it lacks the spreading mechanisms of so many other deadly diseases, resigning only a few to that suffering.

The third reason is travel. Planes involve a lot of interaction with people in close quarters, and since that makes it far more likely that Ebola will spread, it creates a justifiably awful situation. Add in the fact that this is an international problem and therefore requires quarantines to involve efforts by multiple nations acting in tandem, and you've got a problem. Even in this case, though, there's been no cases of Ebola spreading throughout passengers on a plane that I can recall, mainly because the symptoms it presents are so obvious that no one wants to sit near to that person, and because they tend not to be spewing fluids all over their fellow passengers.

The fourth reason is that scientists remember the first time Ebola came to the U.S. I can't remember if it was Reston or Ivory Coast, but one of those two was brought back to the U.S. for study in monkeys (mainly because it cannot infect humans). One monkey was infected, placed in a separate room from its healthy fellows. Despite the separation, all monkeys were infected, and had to be sacrificed. This is, to my knowledge, the sole instance of Ebola showing any airborne properties, and some people remember it all too well. However, there's no evidence whatsoever that any other Ebola strain (or even that same one in nature) has this property. As such, I remain skeptical, and much as concerns are somewhat validated, there's a lack of evidence to support them.

Maybe this is too complex of a question but why would the Ebola be airborne in monkeys but not in humans?

Forgive me, I'm ignorant of a lot of scientific things that may or may not be common knowledge.

You phrased this in an intriguing way, though. It's possible that this is specific to the strain being investigated here, and therefore that strain may have been the only airborne one. It's possible that they had a mutated version of that strain that had somehow gained the capacity for airborne transmission. But your question insinuates that there might be a difference in terms of how easily it can infect monkeys versus humans, which may actually be the case. I'm not sure what they did with regards to the research on this particular instance, but they could have studied this specific strain of Ebola for virulence factors. Those may involve interactions with certain proteins on certain cells found only in monkeys, and thus the virus would be unable to exploit those factors in human cells, requiring a different mode of transmission. That's often the case when we use mice as test subjects for diseases they normally don't get, since you have to inoculate them in a special way in order for the infection to take hold.

Didn't they bring back, treat and cure two Americans of Ebola already? I mean... yes they were infected in West Africa, but they came back to the US for treatment. Same for a Briton, all three are fine now.

Or is it the fact he was already infected, out of isolation, in the US?

"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

We already agreed on the substance of that quote, which is that quarantines are necessary to protect public health. Your statement was that Ebola specifically would infect a substantial number of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. That's what I have a problem with.

Time will tell won't it. It was just reported that nearly 100 people came into contact with the ebola guy from the time he showed symptoms until the time he was quarantined. He should have never been allowed in the country, period. They knew where he came from and knew there was an ebola outbreak there but ignored quarantine protocol anyway.

At 10/2/2014 3:21:25 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:Didn't they bring back, treat and cure two Americans of Ebola already? I mean... yes they were infected in West Africa, but they came back to the US for treatment. Same for a Briton, all three are fine now.

Or is it the fact he was already infected, out of isolation, in the US?

Naw man. The only POEs are the subject's family. Due to how poorly the hospital handled it, we won't really know for a month.

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

We already agreed on the substance of that quote, which is that quarantines are necessary to protect public health. Your statement was that Ebola specifically would infect a substantial number of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. That's what I have a problem with.

Time will tell won't it. It was just reported that nearly 100 people came into contact with the ebola guy from the time he showed symptoms until the time he was quarantined. He should have never been allowed in the country, period. They knew where he came from and knew there was an ebola outbreak there but ignored quarantine protocol anyway.

Again, we agree that they handled this poorly. My problem with your statements is that you're blowing this out of proportion. Coming into contact with an Ebola victim is problematic, but it's unlikely to result in a spreading of the infection. Time will tell, but in the meantime, let's not treat this as though we're going to see thousands of dead in the U.S. in the next few weeks.

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

We already agreed on the substance of that quote, which is that quarantines are necessary to protect public health. Your statement was that Ebola specifically would infect a substantial number of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. That's what I have a problem with.

Time will tell won't it. It was just reported that nearly 100 people came into contact with the ebola guy from the time he showed symptoms until the time he was quarantined. He should have never been allowed in the country, period. They knew where he came from and knew there was an ebola outbreak there but ignored quarantine protocol anyway.

Again, we agree that they handled this poorly. My problem with your statements is that you're blowing this out of proportion. Coming into contact with an Ebola victim is problematic, but it's unlikely to result in a spreading of the infection. Time will tell, but in the meantime, let's not treat this as though we're going to see thousands of dead in the U.S. in the next few weeks.

Why would we not treat a potential pandemic as though thousands would die. That would be the height of irresponsibility and dereliction. In 2010 the govt scraped the protocol that would have prevented this person from ever reaching the US. Total incompetence in the name of political correctness.

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

We already agreed on the substance of that quote, which is that quarantines are necessary to protect public health. Your statement was that Ebola specifically would infect a substantial number of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. That's what I have a problem with.

Time will tell won't it. It was just reported that nearly 100 people came into contact with the ebola guy from the time he showed symptoms until the time he was quarantined. He should have never been allowed in the country, period. They knew where he came from and knew there was an ebola outbreak there but ignored quarantine protocol anyway.

Again, we agree that they handled this poorly. My problem with your statements is that you're blowing this out of proportion. Coming into contact with an Ebola victim is problematic, but it's unlikely to result in a spreading of the infection. Time will tell, but in the meantime, let's not treat this as though we're going to see thousands of dead in the U.S. in the next few weeks.

Why would we not treat a potential pandemic as though thousands would die. That would be the height of irresponsibility and dereliction. In 2010 the govt scraped the protocol that would have prevented this person from ever reaching the US. Total incompetence in the name of political correctness.

There's a difference between how the CDC and NIH treat the disease and how we as the general public treat it. They have the duty to do everything they can to minimize its impact on our population, and they have the expertise and resources to accomplish that goal. We don't have those things, and efforts on our part just spur fear, which causes more harm than good. So no, it is not our - the general citizens of the U.S. - responsibility to treat every disease that comes into the U.S. as a potential pandemic of gigantic proportions. And especially when we have the knowledge of how the disease spreads and how likely it is to become a pandemic threat, we should be extremely wary of jumping to such conclusions.

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

We already agreed on the substance of that quote, which is that quarantines are necessary to protect public health. Your statement was that Ebola specifically would infect a substantial number of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. That's what I have a problem with.

Time will tell won't it. It was just reported that nearly 100 people came into contact with the ebola guy from the time he showed symptoms until the time he was quarantined. He should have never been allowed in the country, period. They knew where he came from and knew there was an ebola outbreak there but ignored quarantine protocol anyway.

Again, we agree that they handled this poorly. My problem with your statements is that you're blowing this out of proportion. Coming into contact with an Ebola victim is problematic, but it's unlikely to result in a spreading of the infection. Time will tell, but in the meantime, let's not treat this as though we're going to see thousands of dead in the U.S. in the next few weeks.

Why would we not treat a potential pandemic as though thousands would die. That would be the height of irresponsibility and dereliction. In 2010 the govt scraped the protocol that would have prevented this person from ever reaching the US. Total incompetence in the name of political correctness.

There's a difference between how the CDC and NIH treat the disease and how we as the general public treat it. They have the duty to do everything they can to minimize its impact on our population, and they have the expertise and resources to accomplish that goal. We don't have those things, and efforts on our part just spur fear, which causes more harm than good. So no, it is not our - the general citizens of the U.S. - responsibility to treat every disease that comes into the U.S. as a potential pandemic of gigantic proportions. And especially when we have the knowledge of how the disease spreads and how likely it is to become a pandemic threat, we should be extremely wary of jumping to such conclusions.

Here is where you and I part ways. There is a known pandemic going on in Liberia. The CDC and the US govt know it. Yet you and the federal govt refuse to acknowledge it and the US govt still lets people from that country enter the US. It has yet to issue a no entry order putting us all in danger knowingly and willingly.

It is probably nothing to get into a stew about. We have the medical technology to treat infected people and keep the virus under control as opposed to the third world( Africa).

"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."

At 10/2/2014 9:53:09 AM, sadolite wrote:Ebola spread in the US? "That will never happen" I said it first. But sarcastically.

You're going to need more than sarcasm to present a case for its spread. We've gone through a slew of scares with diseases that were far more likely to spread far and wide in the U.S. - bird flu and SARS come to mind - without seeing that kind of fallout. Ebola is far easier to contain.

"In summary, states are responsible for protecting their citizens. Although quarantine and isolation orders are designed to protect the public's health, it is critical that states not unnecessarily sacrifice the civil rights of individuals in the process of responding to public health emergencies."

So in other words worrying about a single individual trumps all of humanity. In other words the CDC hands are tied for fear of law suits from the ACLU.

We already agreed on the substance of that quote, which is that quarantines are necessary to protect public health. Your statement was that Ebola specifically would infect a substantial number of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. That's what I have a problem with.

Time will tell won't it. It was just reported that nearly 100 people came into contact with the ebola guy from the time he showed symptoms until the time he was quarantined. He should have never been allowed in the country, period. They knew where he came from and knew there was an ebola outbreak there but ignored quarantine protocol anyway.

Again, we agree that they handled this poorly. My problem with your statements is that you're blowing this out of proportion. Coming into contact with an Ebola victim is problematic, but it's unlikely to result in a spreading of the infection. Time will tell, but in the meantime, let's not treat this as though we're going to see thousands of dead in the U.S. in the next few weeks.

Why would we not treat a potential pandemic as though thousands would die. That would be the height of irresponsibility and dereliction. In 2010 the govt scraped the protocol that would have prevented this person from ever reaching the US. Total incompetence in the name of political correctness.

There's a difference between how the CDC and NIH treat the disease and how we as the general public treat it. They have the duty to do everything they can to minimize its impact on our population, and they have the expertise and resources to accomplish that goal. We don't have those things, and efforts on our part just spur fear, which causes more harm than good. So no, it is not our - the general citizens of the U.S. - responsibility to treat every disease that comes into the U.S. as a potential pandemic of gigantic proportions. And especially when we have the knowledge of how the disease spreads and how likely it is to become a pandemic threat, we should be extremely wary of jumping to such conclusions.

Here is where you and I part ways. There is a known pandemic going on in Liberia. The CDC and the US govt know it. Yet you and the federal govt refuse to acknowledge it and the US govt still lets people from that country enter the US. It has yet to issue a no entry order putting us all in danger knowingly and willingly.

...

Let's start with the obvious problem: no, there is no pandemic in Liberia. Liberia is a single country, it is literally impossible for that country to represent a pandemic. Ebola is epidemic in Liberia, it is epidemic in many countries in Africa. No one, not me and not the CDC, is denying that it is a demonstrable threat to those nations. It is not, however, a multi-continent scourge affecting vast swaths of people on other continents.

Second, and for the fourth time, I will repeat that quarantine procedures have been faulted, and those that exist have failed. You keep repeating the same point as though it's a point of contention, even though it's anything but.

Third, I gave 6 separate reasons why an epidemic of Ebola in Liberia is not going to have the same effect in the U.S. You've chosen to ignore those, and treat the spread of Ebola to epidemic levels in the U.S. as a certain outcome. My response has been, and will continue to be, that that view engenders unsubstantiated fears that cause more harm than the disease itself with no effective benefits. Claiming that so many people are essentially at death's door is far more likely to engender made histerics than it is to protect people against its spread. And yet that's what you keep doing.

It is probably nothing to get into a stew about. We have the medical technology to treat infected people and keep the virus under control as opposed to the third world( Africa).

Let's be clear that there is no widely tested vaccine nor antiviral available for usage against this disease, and that the few under testing are very difficult to produce in large amounts. You're right that the U.S. can better control its spread than most African nations, but that's not just due to our being a first world nations - different funerary practices in many African nations is often responsible for the dramatic spread of the disease. So it's not incredibly dangerous to us here in the U.S., but it is a dangerous and deadly disease nonetheless, and one the CDC should be very responsive to.

We'd probably have to incinerate the body. Some viruses are still spreadable even after the host body dies. Idk if that's the case with Ebola or not though.

It is the case with Ebola that disease can (and often is) spread after death. However, incineration is not entirely necessary. As long as the body is handled carefully, the spread of disease can be prevented.

It is probably nothing to get into a stew about. We have the medical technology to treat infected people and keep the virus under control as opposed to the third world( Africa).

Let's be clear that there is no widely tested vaccine nor antiviral available for usage against this disease, and that the few under testing are very difficult to produce in large amounts. You're right that the U.S. can better control its spread than most African nations, but that's not just due to our being a first world nations - different funerary practices in many African nations is often responsible for the dramatic spread of the disease. So it's not incredibly dangerous to us here in the U.S., but it is a dangerous and deadly disease nonetheless, and one the CDC should be very responsive to.

True.

"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."